Yeah, how could anyone not like having their country occupied by foreign invaders? I mean god, the audacity of that woman! We sure as hell would love to have china occupying the U.S. :roll:
Are you retarded?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I see blackaignst1 provides a perfect foil for the question implied which is----Please tell me where this 3/4 of a million people are buried? You would think they would be running out of cemetary room in the more densely populated areas by now; I would think there would probably be a news story about it somewhere.
Google "mass graves in iraq" and you get lots of info. Here's just one
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that with the US Iraqi occupation their families find and bury the corpses in Iraqi cemeteries all over the country. And the families don't report the death for fear that they too will be then tracked and killed.
Under Saddam, masses of people were simple herded to pre dug pits and executed assembly line style. And then tossed into pits and buried by the same machines that dug the pits. As the link blackaignst1 provided, Saddam was a horrible war criminal. And the world is better off now that he is dead. But if we look at the blackaignst1 link, it details less than 250,000 killed under Saddam. The number of Iraqis killed by Saddam is some unknown higher number.
But we are now LOOKING AT A POINT where the GWB&co inspired occupation has indeed violently resulted in more Iraqi deaths than Saddam.
WHEN THE GWB BUNGLED OCCUPATION OF IRAQ KILLS MORE THAN SADDAM, we have clearly reached a HORROR POINT.
Google "mass graves in iraq" and you get lots of info. Here's just one
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that with the US Iraqi occupation their families find and bury the corpses in Iraqi cemeteries all over the country. And the families don't report the death for fear that they too will be then tracked and killed.
Under Saddam, masses of people were simple herded to pre dug pits and executed assembly line style. And then tossed into pits and buried by the same machines that dug the pits. As the link blackaignst1 provided, Saddam was a horrible war criminal. And the world is better off now that he is dead. But if we look at the blackaignst1 link, it details less than 250,000 killed under Saddam. The number of Iraqis killed by Saddam is some unknown higher number.
But we are now LOOKING AT A POINT where the GWB&co inspired occupation has indeed violently resulted in more Iraqi deaths than Saddam.
WHEN THE GWB BUNGLED OCCUPATION OF IRAQ KILLS MORE THAN SADDAM, we have clearly reached a HORROR POINT.
Genocide: the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation.
Since the US deliberately is crushing the Iraqi people under it's boot it is genocide.
I don't know whether the two studies were looking at different things. What I do know is that Soros funded the one claiming 650,000 deaths which is factually inaccurate. Let me cite the relevant passage from the article I linked:
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros?s Open Society Institute.
I did.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
You constantly move around your argument. First it was death. Now it's occupation.
Go learn how to have a discussion without throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. Then come back after you figure things out.
Thanks.
PS folks, can we try to stay on topic here? The point I was making was strictly that Soros funded an anti-war study. I didn't make any claims about [insert number here] deaths being 'acceptable' or some other number not.
And cut the Ron Paul spam and discussion. You Paulbots can have your own damn threads. :|
And cut the Ron Paul spam and discussion. You Paulbots can have your own damn threads. :|
As you see here my post was in response to living conditions, you said he had no facts, I provided them.
Then you try to discredit her because she is ant-war.
Here's where I point out your stupidity in thinking and error in judgment. She is not just anyone, she is an Iraqi, speaking for them and their living conditions.
Actually I have made my case pretty clear that I followed the argument until you cut and run.
Actually, as shown above, it is you that needs to learn how to have a discussion and follow the topic. This is your tactic. Whenever you get pushed into a corner, you berate the person and run. Coward. What a sad little man you are.
You need to talk to corbett about that shit. You anti-paulbots are worse the Ron Paul supporters IMO.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pabster, Quit trying to engage in revisionist history.
This is what you said and I quote----Anti-War George Soros Funded Iraq Study
Topic Summary: Which Claimed 650,000 Deaths, And Was Wrong
The point is that someone like Rush Limbaugh might get away with making such an argument
with a captive audience of unthinking idiots, but if you want to be an unthinking idiot and try to sell the same argument on P&N, as you discovered, you are going to get totally shot down because you have no logic to support your conclusion.
Bottom line, you did not question your own argument and emotionally assumed we would therefore buy it also. Most of us are not you and that kind of leaves you out of touch Pabster.
So you blame PAULBOTS?????????
First, I'm honored to be compared to the most popular talk radio host in the USA. Thanks! :laugh:
Second, there's nothing wrong with the thread title or the topic summary. They're both accurate. Soros funded the study, and it was factually inaccurate.
Lemon, you're so far out of touch with reality sometimes that I question your very sanity. You seem to love personal attacks and obfuscation, but come up dishearteningly short in the fact and evidence categories. :roll:
Sinsear
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2007
- 6,439
- 80
- 91
Horseshit. A supposed 3/4 of a million buried in a few years would be noticeable anywhere. What do you think that these Iraqis who are so "oppressed" drive half way across the country to bury their dead in obscure cemetaries?
Face it; that number is inflated and no more tenable than the other jackass in this thread accusing the US of genocide.
Since you can't gather this with your own mind, I'll spell it out for you.
T h e
w o r d
t r i a l
w a s
b e i n g
u s e d
f i g u r a t i v e l y.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
That's right. I forgot that besides trying to accuse someone of finding death acceptable, and using the "OMG, how would you like a Chinese occupation?" talking point, you also tried to move to living conditions in Iraq. What next? "Think of the children."?
I did not discredit her. I discredited YOU, fool. You were trying to use the speech of an anti-war activist, which btw was made in 2006 and doesn't reflect today's conditions by ay means, as any sort of meaningful metric to back up the claim about how bad things are in Iraq.
No, there's where you make a stupid diversionary argument. You made no point. You were merely swining wildly with whatever talking point came to your head. A talking point that had NOTHING to do with the OP.
Whoa. You've even broken out another poor tactic with that statement. Congrats on digging that hole even deeper.
No, if you had half a brain you could follow along with the conversation. Do you have some mental disability I should be aware of? Can you read? Follow points?
You discredit yourself, fool. You TRIED to discredit her by way of insinuation, her being "anti-war". Anyone can see through that tactic. So what if it was made in 2006, she makes points that are fact. Those facts in which you said couldn't be provided. Again, follow along here.
No hole here, just your bastardization of the argument so you can cut and run, as usual.
Pabster is wrong and publishing lies yet again.
First, the Lancet study was a well-intended study and the best at the time. It was not some attempt at propaganda as some are.
Second, when Pabster says the accurate figure is 151,000, one thing that's clear is that he's wrong, that 151,000 is TOO LOW a figure.
For just one example, some of the most dangerous regions were too dangerous for this study, and they used other figures which are known to be low, because they're in areas with a lot of unreported killings, and they rely only on those killings with official records - any reasonable commentator agrees they're low.
There are other reasons why the new study is too low, which can be read about in any of the reasonable commentaries on it - in contrast to Pabster's inaccurate post.
He tries to turn the well-intended Soros who spent money for society to get the best possible estimate at the time - even if it turns out to be imperfect, as it is - into a partisan and dishonest attack on Soros. You have Pabster as the champion and defender of evil, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by the policy he supports, in contrast to someone who tries to make things better, Soros.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter